Interpersonal Experiences with Persistent Genital Arousal: Connections between Symptom Disclosure, Partner Responses, and Catastrophizing on Relationship Adjustment and Symptom Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased research attention to interpersonal factors in genitopelvic pain conditions, such as vulvodynia, have led to more comprehensive understanding of couple dynamics in pain, sexual, and relationship outcomes. There has been very little examination of interpersonal factors in Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder/Genitopelvic Dysesthesia (PGAD/GPD), a distressing condition involving persistent sensations of arousal and often pain. The aims of the present study were to examine whether individuals disclose their symptoms to intimate partners and whether interpersonal variables (e.g., partner responses, symptom disclosure, and catastrophizing) are related to relationship adjustment and symptom severity. Seventy-six individuals with symptoms of PGAD/GPD participated in a one-time anonymous online survey. Over three-quarters (85.5%) of the sample disclosed their symptoms to their partners in some way. Greater supportive partner responses and lower symptom catastrophizing were related to better relationship adjustment among participants with PGAD/GPD symptoms. Greater symptom catastrophizing also predicted greater PGAD/GPD symptom severity. Partner responses were not related to PGAD/GPD symptom severity. Although interpersonal factors have been linked to symptom severity in chronic pain and genitopelvic pain conditions, the results of the current study suggest that interpersonal factors may play a slightly different role in PGAD/GPD symptom experiences and in the conceptualization of PGAD/GPD more broadly.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".